Momolu Sirleaf v. David Robinson


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999958485-3]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999949934-2] Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00552-MHL-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000097176].. [16-7357]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7357 Doc: 31 Filed: 06/08/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7357 MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF; ERIC L. PROSHA; JOHN KING; AARON LEWIS; PETER ROSAS; RYAN SESSOMS; RAY WATSON, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. DAVID ROBINSON; CURTIS WALL; M. VOSBURG; UNKNOWN HICKS; M. ROOK; UNKNOWN VARGO; D. WILMOUTH; UNKNOWN CREQUE; C. PARKER; HAROLD CLARK; M. FORBES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:15-cv-00552-MHL-RCY) Submitted: April 28, 2017 Decided: June 8, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Eric L. Prosha, John King, Aaron Lewis, Peter Rosas, Ryan Sessoms, and Ray Watson, Appellants Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7357 Doc: 31 Filed: 06/08/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing the claims of Aaron Lewis and Momolu V.S. Sirleaf without prejudice, and ordering that individual actions be opened for Eric L. Prosha, John King, Peter Rosas, Ryan Sessoms, and Ray Watson. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders that Appellants seek to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders. Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?